Skip to content

branch-4.0: [Chore](bitmap) change BitmapValue CHECK to throw exception #59464 #59491

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
github-actions wants to merge 1 commit into
base: branch-4.0
Choose a base branch
from
Open

branch-4.0: [Chore](bitmap) change BitmapValue CHECK to throw exception #59464 #59491

github-actions wants to merge 1 commit into from
+9 −2

Conversation

@github-actions
Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot commented Dec 30, 2025

Cherry-picked from #59464

@BiteTheDDDDt
[Chore](bitmap) change BitmapValue CHECK to throw exception (#59464)
244bcf6 
This pull request refactors error handling in the `BitmapValue` class to
improve robustness and provide clearer error messages. Instead of using
`CHECK` macros, it now throws exceptions with detailed information when
inconsistencies are detected in the bitmap value's set count.

**Error handling improvements:**

* Replaced `CHECK` and `CHECK_EQ` macros with explicit exception
throwing (`Exception(ErrorCode::INTERNAL_ERROR, ...)`) when the set
count exceeds the threshold or does not match the expected size,
including detailed error messages with the problematic values.
@github-actions github-actions bot requested a review from yiguolei as a code owner December 30, 2025 09:45
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Dec 30, 2025

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

  1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
  2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
  3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
  4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
  5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?

@dataroaring dataroaring reopened this Dec 30, 2025
@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Dec 30, 2025

run buildall

@hello-stephen
Copy link
Contributor

hello-stephen commented Dec 30, 2025

BE UT Coverage Report

Increment line coverage 22.22% (2/9) 🎉

Increment coverage report
Complete coverage report

Category Coverage
Function Coverage 53.34% (18667/34994)
Line Coverage 39.12% (172955/442086)
Region Coverage 33.78% (133590/395430)
Branch Coverage 34.78% (57786/166167)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@yiguolei yiguolei Awaiting requested review from yiguolei yiguolei is a code owner

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@hello-stephen @dataroaring @BiteTheDDDDt